DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-11 have been presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “data obtainer”, “setter”, and “generator” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The structures for the above terms can be found in applicants specification in paragraph 0064.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1: A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing an object forming data generation program including instructions to cause a controller of a computer to perform operations comprising:
obtaining three-dimensional data representing a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional product;
setting a plurality of supports to be connected to the three-dimensional product and a support member to be connected to each of the plurality of supports, based on the three-dimensional data, such that, when viewed from a reference direction intersecting each of the plurality of supports, the support member is offset to a position outside the three-dimensional product and at which a length of each of the plurality of supports in a longitudinal direction thereof is a predetermined amount from an outer periphery of the three-dimensional product; and
generating three-dimensional object forming data for forming an object including the three-dimensional product, the plurality of supports, and the support member, using a three-dimensional object forming apparatus.
Step 1: The claim is directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Limitations (a)-(b) recite obtaining three-dimensional data representing a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional product; setting a plurality of supports to be connected to the three-dimensional product and a support member to be connected to each of the plurality of supports, based on the three-dimensional data, such that, when viewed from a reference direction intersecting each of the plurality of supports, the support member is offset to a position outside the three-dimensional product and at which a length of each of the plurality of supports in a longitudinal direction thereof is a predetermined amount from an outer periphery of the three-dimensional product. At a high level these represent the Mental Process (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) group of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract ideas, the “obtaining three-dimensional data…” step additionally represents mere data gathering and is recited at a high level of generality that that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Thus, the input of data (i.e., obtaining) is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim further recites the step of “generating three-dimensional object forming data for forming an object including the three-dimensional product, the plurality of supports, and the support member, using a three-dimensional object forming apparatus”. As such, it is nothing more than an
attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. Even
when viewed in combination, the additional element does not integrate the recited judicial
exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception.
The claim has additional elements. The claim requires a non-transitory computer readable storage medium to cause a controller of a computer to perform the above steps. This suggests memory for storage and the controller (i.e., processor) to execute the stored instructions. This is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Next is the processor in communication with the memory to perform steps (a)-(c). The controller is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional memory or processor, or even a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces," but merely call for performance of the claimed steps "on a set of generic computer components". Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1349-52, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6-7.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-10, these claims provide additional Mental Processes performed by the controller and therefore not patent eligible for the same rationale as provided above.
Regarding claim 11, this is rejected on the same basis set forth hereinabove with respect to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honda et al1 [Honda] JP2003136605.
Referring to claim 1, Honda teaches performing the operations comprising:
obtaining three-dimensional data representing a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional product [0027, 0067];
setting a plurality of supports to be connected to the three-dimensional product and a support member to be connected to each of the plurality of supports, based on the three-dimensional data, such that, when viewed from a reference direction intersecting each of the plurality of supports, the support member is offset to a position outside the three-dimensional product and at which a length of each of the plurality of supports in a longitudinal direction thereof is a predetermined amount from an outer periphery of the three-dimensional product [Fig. 4, 0027, 0068]; and
generating three-dimensional object forming data for forming an object including the three-dimensional product, the plurality of supports, and the support member, using a three-dimensional object forming apparatus [0068].
Referring to claim 2, Honda teaches adding a support shape that includes both the frame and supports wherein the support lengths have a predetermined length between 5 and 10mm [0070]. Because the supports reflect the offset of the frame from the product model, it is interpreted that the offset of the frame and the corresponding supports are both predetermined and set between 5-10mm.
Referring to claim 5, Honda teaches that the support member/frame is offset from the outer periphery of the product in a direction perpendicular to a reference direction when viewed from the reference direction [Fig. 4].
Referring to claim 6, Honda teaches including a larger shrinkage rate (i.e., providing a greater thickness) for the product, thus allowing for cutting and finishing consideration in those steps [0043]. This is interpreted as adding a machining allowance.
Referring to claims 7-8, Honda teaches that the support member/frame is a ring around the product and is offset by an amount limited to the length of the supports which is limited to between 5-10mm [Fig. 4, 0070].
Referring to claim 11, this is rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove with respect to claim 1.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, offsetting the support member by an amount corresponding to the size of the machining tool (claim 3) or further including setting an outer frame for the support member outside of the three-dimensional object (claims 9-10).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 8/23/26
1 Cited by applicant
Prosecution Insights